Conscience as Drunkeness horedome c. have been glad enough of such doctrine forward enough to beleeve that there is nothing in man that in any part can justifie him or that is any part of Righteousness but it is all out of us in Christ therefore they are as justifiable as any But Conscience will not let them beleeve it as they desire Ans. To this cannot answere not knowing nor having acquaintance with those poor sinners Yet this I may say others will say the same with me that Mr. Baxter's way is that which I finde more relishing unto carnal Souls than the self denying way of the Gospel which we use to preach And that the way which Mr. Baxter is not satisfied with is the way that is most pleasant acceptable unto the truely gracious and rightly exercised Souls But surder what of all this Knoweth not Mr. Baxter that some can turn the grace of God into lasciviousness Must therefore the mountains be removed for them He saith Moreover n. 185. It is arrogant folly to divide tho praise of any good act between God man to say God is to have so many parts man so many for the whole is due to God yet some is due to man for man holdeth his honour only in Subordination to God not dividedly in Co-ordination And therefore all is due to God for that which is Mans is God's because we have nothing but what we have received But he that arrogateth any of the honour due to God or Christ â—ffendeth Ans. If it be thus Mr. Baxter is the more to blame in being dissatisfied with such as are but expressing their care that God have all his due and that man do not proudly arrogat to himself any of that honour glory which is due to God alone And if Mr. Baxter knoweth not that there is a strong propension in corrupt nature to spoil God of his glory he knoweth nothing And wo to such as would indulge nature in this Sacrilege Them that honour God He will honour What honour is justly due unto man in subordination unto God none of those I suppose whom Mr. Baxter here opposeth will grudge him of but all their care is to have God's due keeped for himself that is all it is not commendable in any to oppose them in this But next he saith n. 186. If all had been taken from God's honour which had been given to the creature God would have made nothing or made nothing good heaven earth all the world would derogate from his honour and none of his works should be praised And the better any man is the more he would dishonour God the wickeder the less But he made all good and is glorious in the glory honourable in the honour of all to justifie the holiness of his servants is to justifie him Ans. All this is little or nothing to the purpose for such as are carefull that man rob not God of his glory do not deny the honour due to the creature knowing that when honour is given to the creature upon a right ground and in the right manner it redounded unto the honour of the Creator But who knoweth not how ready the Creature is to steal into the throne of God and how ready men are to transcendâ— and transgress all due limites And is it not saifest to keep far from such a dangerous precipice Is it to edification thus to gratifie with our pleadings proud Nature and to blow at this fire of corruption that the Saints have dailyhard work about to suppress exstinguish Must we thus on so small occasions plead so stoutly for man pretend to plead for God too He addeth next n. 187. If these Teachers mean that no man hath any power freely to specifie the acts of his own will by any other help of God besides necessitating predetermining premotion so that every man doth all that he can do no man can do more than he doth They di honoure God by denying him to be the Creator of that fâ—ee power which is essential to man which God himself accounteth it his honour to creat And they feigne God to damne blame all that are damned blamed for as great impossibilities as if they were damned blamed for not making a world or for not being Angels Ans. This is not a fit place to treate of that Question of Predetermination though Mr. Baxter pull it in here by the eares It is enough for us that we see now whither all that Mr. Baxter hath here been saying tendeth even to give unto Man the glory of all the good he doth of his Faith Repentance Love of God obedience perseverance in the first chiefe immediat â—â—ace for by his own Natural Power he did freely specifie the acts of his own will and so beleeved when he might have rejected the Gospel Loved God Christ when he might have hated both Repented when he might have remained impenitent Converted himself when he might have remained in his former state Mr. Baxter maketh no difference of acts here and so his words must be looked on as meaned of supernatural acts as well as of Natural that without any predetermining grace or motion of God This glory shall we never yeeld to be due unto man Let Mr. Baxter load the Doctrine of Predetermining grace with all the reproaches and absurdities he can invent He needs not think now to restrick his opinion of denying Predetermination unto natural acts for as the good spoken of by those he here opposeth is supernatural good as such so his discourse here is expressive enough of this And thus the cause is yeelded unto Pelagians Iesuits Arminians and the crown is put upon the head of man and he is to honour praise himself for what good he doth for all began at his own self-determining power will and the Almighty himself could not have bowed predetermined his will except he had overturned the course of Nature destroyed that free power which is essential to man And thus it is made to be to the honour of God to creat a Creature that is absolute Lord Master of all his own actions so must be the first Cause of his own actions as to their specifick moral nature what is this but to make man an independent Creature as to his actions consequently a God to himself Mr. Baxter hinteth some other help of God besides Predetermination but what that is he telleth us not is it his Concourse From this the same inconveniences will flow that flow from Predetermination And beside Mr. Baxter seemeth to incline more to Durandus's his opinion A dola's which even the Jesuites are ashamed to owne and his friend D. Strang doth directly confute as loving to set man yet higher up than they dar do Doth Mr. Baxter think that it is essential to man to have such a free
the score of Beleevers as if he had recalled the former pardon granted for he remembereth their sin no more Ier. 31 34. Heb. 8 12. 10 17. And for future sins by vertue of their State they have access to seek for pardon and have ground 3 The Righteousness of Christ which is a perfect Righteousness is fully and perfectly communicated and imputed so as thereby they become the Righteousness of God in Christ 2. Cor. 5. last He is their whole Righteousness in order to Iustification and wholly their Righteousness as made of God Righteousness unto them Ier. 23 6 1. Cor. 1 30. And with this Righteousness they are wholly perfectly covered to expect it as found hid there Phil. 3 9. are made Righteous Rom. 5 19. 10 4. 4 They are now wholly Reconciled unto God and have Peace with Him and not by halfes or in some certain respects only as if in other respects they were still Enemies or in a state of Enmity Being justified by faith they have Peace with God Rom. 5 1. once they were enemies but now they are reconciled vers 10. by Christ they have now received the Atonement vers 11. once alienated enemies in their mindes by wicked works but now reconciled Col. 1 21. once a far off but now made neer Ephes. 2 13. the enmity being staine vers 16. No more strangers or forreigners now but fellow citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God vers 19. Then is the Lord pacified toward them for all that they have done Ezek. 16 63. 5 They are compleetly translated into a new Covenant state not halfe the children of Saran and half the children of God not halfe in Nature and halfe in the state of Grace not half translated halfe not Ephes. 2 13 19. Col. 1 21. not halfe quickened with Christ and halfe not Ephes. 2 5. They are not now halfe without Christ or aliens from the common wealth of Israel or strangers from the Covenants of promise c. Ephes. 2 12. There is a perfect change as to their state 1. Cor. 6 11. 6 They are secured as to final Condemnation There is no condemnation for them Rom. 8 1. being beleevers they shall not perish but have eternal life Ioh. 3 15 16. He that beleeveth is not condemned vers 18. See also Ioh. 3 36. 6 47. They are passed from death unto life Ioh. 5 24. 1. Ioh. 3 14. being discharged of all guilt of eternal punishment which formerly they deserved by their sinnes And all this holdeth good notwithstanding of their after sins which as we shall shew do not annull or make any such breach upon their state of Justification It is true these sins must also be Pardoned will be Pardoned but yet when they are pardoned their Justification as to their state is not hereby more perfected as to these respects formerly mentioned It holdeth good also notwithstanding of what shall be at the great day for that will put no man in a new Justified state who was not Reconciled to God before It is true there will be many additions as to the Solemnitie Declaration Consequences Effects thereof in that day but not withstanding hereof the state of Justification here as to what respecteth its grounds the essential change it maketh together with the Right that beleevers have thereby unto all that in that day they shall be put in possession of is perfect may be said so to be Propos. 7 By what is said it is manifest how in what respects this life of Iustification differeth from the life of Sanctification 1 Sanctification maketh a real Physical change Iustification maketh a Relative change And thereby they come to have a new State or Relation unto the Law unto God the judge 2 Sanctification is continueing work wherein beleevers are more more built up daily Iustification is an act of God or a juridcial sentence Absolving a sinner pronunceing him free of the charge brought in against him and not liable to the penalty 3 Sanctification is a groÌ„wing and increasing work admitteth of many degrees is usually weak and small at the beginning Iustification doth not grow neither doth it admit of degrees but is full compleet adequate unto all ends here 4 Sanctification is ever growing here and never cometh to full Perfection before death Justification is perfect adequate unto all ends as we shewed 5 Sanctification is not alike in all but some are more some are less sanctified But Iustification is equal in all none being more justified then others 6 Some measures degrees of Sanctification which have been attained may be lost againe But nothing of Iustification can really be lost for we are not here speaking of the sense and feeling of Justification which frequently may be lost but of Justification it self 7 Sanctification is a progressive work Iustification is instantaneous as was shown 8. Sanctification respecteth the Being Power Dominion of â—in in the beleever and killeth subdueth and mortifieth it Iustification respecteth its guilt demerite taketh away guilt and the obligation to punishment or obnoxiousness to the paying of the penalty 9 In justification a man is accepted upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him and received by Faith But in Sanctification grace is infused and the Spirit given to perfecte holiness in the fear of God 10 In Iustification there is a right had unto life and unto the rich recompence of reward upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed whence they are said to have passed from death to life But in Sanctification they are made meet to be partakers of the Inheritance of the Saints in light 11 Unto Iustification nothing is required but faith in Christ whereby the soul may become united to Him have a right to his benefites But unto Sanctification all the graces of the Spirit are requisite and all the exercises of the same all diligence is required and an adding of Vertue to Faith of Knowledge to Vertue of Temperance to Knowledge of Patience to Temperance of Godliness to Patience of Brotherly kindness to Godliness of Charity to Brotherly kindness 2 Pet. 1 5 6 7. Propos. 8 Hence it followeth also thar there is no ground to assert a first a second Justification as Papists do meaning by the first an Infusion of an inward Principle or Habite of Grace which is no Justification nor part thereof but the beginning of Sanctification and by the Second another Justification which with them is an Effect or Consequent of the former having good work which flow from the foresaid infused principle of grace love for its proper formal cause This Justification they say is by works where as the former is by faith and yet this second they make to be an Incrementum an increase of the first and for this they say the church prayeth when she saith Lord increase our saith hope
at which they stumbled when he said Rom. 9 31 32. But Israel which followed after the law of Righteousness hath not attained to the law of Righteousness wherefore Because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the law for they stumbled at that stumbling stone And againe Rom. 10 3 4. But they being ignorant of God's Righteousness going about to establish their own Righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness c. Is it not hence clear that they rejected Christ and would not owne Him as the end of the law for Righteousness that they stumbled at Him seeking after justification life by their own personal following after the law of Righteousness by seeking to establish their own righteousness How then can this man say pag. 61. That Paul was as far from holding justification by the works of the law as performed by Christ as the jewes were who would have nothing to do with Christ but stumbled at Him while as Paul sought only to be found in Him not having his owne Righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by faith Phil. 3 9. And proclamed Christ to be the end of the law for Righteousnes to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10 4. Against Fit 3 5. where mention is made of the works of righteousness which we have done a sufficient ground laid for the distinction mentioned to prevent the stumbling of such as love to walk in the light he advanceth several answers pag. 62. c. As I. He never said that the active righteousness of Christ should be made a stander-by but that it hath a blessed influence into justification as it issueth into His passive obedience which together may be called a Righteousness for which but not with which we are justified except it can be proved to be either the Material or formal or instrumental cause of justification whoever attempt to do this will wholly dissolve the merite of it Ans. 1 All this maketh nothing to the purpose now in hand which is to show that Paul by this expression cleareth sufficiently what he meaneth by the works of the law which he excludeth from having any interest in justification viz. The works of the law performed by us in our own persons 2 What influence the active obedience of Christ hath in justication when he will not admit it to be any part of that Surety-righteousness which is imputed unto us he showeth not nor what way it issueth in to His passive obedience If all this influence be to make Him fit to be a Sacrifice we have shown above that the personal Union did that and consequently His active obedience if it had no other influence is made a meer stander by 3. A Righteousness for which a Righteousness with which is a distinction in our case without a difference for the one doth no way oppugne or exclude the other because the meritorious cause imputed made over to and reckoned upon the score of beleevers can be also that Righteousness with which they are justified 4 Whether it may be called the Material or Formal cause of justification that any ever called it the instrumental cause is more than I know is no great matter seing it may be either as the termes shall be explained which men are at freedom to do according to their own minde when they apply them unto this matter which hath so little affinity with Effects meerly Natural unto the causes of which these termes are properly applied though I should choose rather to call it the formal objective cause if necessitated to use here philosophik termes 3 That to call Christ's whole Righteousness either the Material or Formal cause of justification is to overthrow the merite of it is said but not proved It is not these philosophical termes themselves but the explication of them by such as use them in this matter that is to be regarded and none shall ever show that either of these termes as explained by the orthodox doth overthrow the merite of Christ's Righteousness both doth rather establish it He saith 2. The H. Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing yet no wayes intimat that the works of any other should be the cause thereof If the words had gone thus not by the works of Righteousness which we our selves had done this had been some what an higher ground to have inferred the opposite member of the distinction upon viz. by the works of another or of Christ. Ans. This exception is as little to the purpose as the former for these words were here brought only to show what the Apostle meant by the works of the law which he excluded from justification viz. the works which we do and not to prove immediatly that the works of any other were understood hereby 2 It is foolish thing to imagine a distinction betwixt works which we do works which we our selves do the same word in the original which vers 5. is rendered we is rendered we our selves vers 3. What poor shifts are these which men take to support a desperat cause He saith 3. To put the matter out of all question that excluding the works of the law which we had done he had no intent to imply the works which another might do he expresseth the opposition thus according to His mercy Ans. The mistake is still continued in By these words we onely cleare what the works are which are excluded viz. our personal works or works which we do or have done whose works else are accepted other places prove expresly this by consequence unless the worke of a third could be alleiged 2 The opposition here made destroyeth not the opposition which we make for when we are justified Saved by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ we are justified saved according to His mercy as well as we are justified freely by His grace when justified through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ Rom. 3 24. He saith 4. thereby seemeth to reply to what is last said The Apostle delivereth himself distinctly of that wherein this Mercy of God be speaks of consisteth viz. regenerating us c. Ans. But I hope the Apostles mentioning of Regeneration doth not exclude the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness the ground thereof nor can he suppose this unless he plead with Papists for justification by our good works done after Regeneration the new birth He saith 5. Such an inference is neither probable nor pertinent to the purpose because the Apostle rejecteth the works of righteousness which he nameth from being any cause antecedaneously moving God to save us not from being the formal cause of justification and we our selves saith he will not say that the works of the law which Christ hath
posterity after him into the same condemnation And how could they be punished for that same guilt if it was not some way theirs by the just righteous Judge Governour of the world The posterity can no more be justly punished for the great hainous sins of their progenitors than for their lesser sinnes if they have no interest in these sinnes nor partake of the guilt thereof But as to Original sin the Scripture giveth the Sin as the ground of the punishment maketh the one to reach all as well as the other telling us Rom. 5 12. that by one Man sin â—ntered in to the world death by sin so death passed upon all Men for that all have sinned or in whom all have sinned See vers 19. 2. The Narrownese or scantisness of Adam's Person who could not beat that fulness of punishment which God might require for that great sin we cannot think that God should sit down with loss Ans. This is his second pillar But neither is it sufficient for God could have punished Adam condingly for his sin but when the posterity is punished for that sin also that sin must be theirs Though for great crimes as Treason the like the Posterity suffeâ—eth when the guilty is forfeited I yet the posterity are not properly punished for that sin nor can be said to be so as we are punished for Original sin because it is ours we sinned in Adam 3. His 3d. maine pillar is the peculir near relation of the posterity of Adam to his person for then they were in it as it were a part or some what of it so that Adam was us all we were all that one Adam as Augustine speaketh the whole generation of mankind is but Adam or Adam's person expounded at large Ans. This is sufficient for us for it will hold forth the Covenant relation wherein Adam stood as representing all his posterity so they were as well in him a part of him in his sin as in his punishment which is all we desire for hence it appeareth that all sinned in that one Adam as well as they were all punished in him Then he tels us that all these three are jointly intimat Râ—â— 5 12. Where first there is the demerito Imported when death is said to enter the scantiness of Adam's person when it is said to have passed upon all men the relation of his posterity to him in that all are said to have sinned in him Ans. But the maine thing which he denieth is there also imported when it is said that all men sinned in him or became guilty of his sin for thereby it is manifest that only they had an interest in his person but that they had such an Interest in relation to his person as so stated as standing in a Covenant-relation to God that they sinned in him or became guilty of his sin therefore suffered with him the demerite thereof Whence it is evident howbeit he seemeth confident of the contrary pag. 207. That the Imputation of Adam's sin or of his sinful Act as sinful or as it was a sin not of the act as such for that himself faith once againe was directly efficiently from God himself therefore was good is the ground or cause of punishment that cometh on his posterity But he saith pag. 208. If any Imputation be in this case it is of every mans own sin in Adam for is was Adam alone that sinned but all sinned in him It is not said that Adam's sin is Imputed to his posterity but rather that his posterity themselves sinned in Adam Ans. If he wil stand to this we need not contend with him about the word Impute this expression of Scripture comprehending plainely holding forth all that we would say And if he will grant as much in reference to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as is here said of Adam who was the type of him that was to come he must I judge retract all that he hath said against the same What followeth in that Chapter being but founded upon what is already mentioned examined needeth not here againe be repeated or expressed considered Thus we have taken notice of all which this voluminous Adversary hath said upon this matter both against the Truth for his own Errour no doubt he hath scraped together all that he could finde giving any seeming contribution unto the Notion which he hugged hath laboured after his usual manner to set of with a more than ordinary measure of confidence with an affected pedantrie of language supplying with bombast expressions the want of reality of truth solidity of reasoning What remaineth in that book concerning the Imputation of faith in opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ shall be examined when we come to the second part of our Text to speak of the matter of justification And as for other things we may take notice of them elsewhere CHAP. XIII M. Baxter's opinion Concerning Imputation examined THere being so frequent mention made in Scripture of Imputation of Righteousness or of Righteousness Imputed of Christ's being our Righteousness or of our being Righteousness or Righteous in Him the like many that even plead much against the Doctrine of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ maintained by the orthodox must yet yeeld to it in some sense or other at least in such a sense as may in their apprehensions not cross their other Hypotheses Dogmes Yea sometimes grant this Imputation in that sense at least in words which overthroweth or weakeneth all their Disputations to the contrary Schlightingius in defence of Socinus against Meisnerus pag. 250. will grant That Christ's Righteousness may be called accounted ours in so far as it redoundeth to our good righteousness is the cause of our justification And Bellarmin will also say de just lib. 2. cap. 10. That Christ is said to be our Righteousness because He satisfied the father for us so giveth communicateth that Satisfaction to us when He justifieth us that it may be said to be our Satisfaction Righteousness Mr. Baxter though he seemeth not satisfied with what is commonly hold by the Orthodox anent the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ yet will not professe himself an Enemie to all Imputation but on the contrary saith he owneth it in a right sense And it is true men have their own liberty in expressing their sense meaning of Truths where there seemeth to be some considerable difference as to words expressions yet there may be little or none upon the matter And it is not good I confess to make real differences of these that are but verbal nor is it good to be so tenacious of our own expressions as to exaggerat the expressions of others whose meaning may be good because not complying with our own in all points Let us
this occasion trouble the Reader with some more of their expressions that we may see that the doctrine which is now so much cried up followed after is nothing but old Socinianisme so owned professed by such as do not deserve to be called Christians Socin de Servat lib. 4. c. 4 7 11. God justifieth the ungodly but now converted penitent after he hath left off to be ungodly the justified are not ungodly in themselves neither are they so called yea they are not sinners which is more they do not now sinne And so faith works that is obedience to the commands of Christ as the forme of faith doth justifie us before God by them through them per illa ex illis he justifieth us Smalcius disp 4. c. Frantzium Regeneration all other good works Love Prayer Obedience Faith Charity c. are so far from being effects of justification that without them justification can no way really exist for God justifieth no man but him who is compleetly adorned with all these vertues â— yea the study of good works walkeing before God were the cause though not the chiefe of the justification of Noah Abraham others who are said to be justified by faith Socin ubi supra de Serv. lib. 1. c. 4. Faith doth not justifie by its proper vertue but by the mercy goâ—d will of God who justifieth such as do such a work imputeth it for righteousness With Paul to have righteousness imputed is nothing else but to have faith imputed to be accounted just faith is so imputed to us as that because of faith we howbeit guilty of many unrighteousness are esteemed perfectly righteous or God so dealeth with us as if we were perfectly righteous who can doubt that the Apostle meaneth no other thing than that we are not righteous before God because our works require that as a due reward but because it hath so seemed good to the Lord to take our faith in place of righteousness so that we receive the reward of grace by which we are declared righteous before him More might be adduced for this end as it might be shown also how herein the Arminians conspire with them against the orthodox And as for the judgment of Papists in this point it is likewise known It will not be necessary that we insist in disproving that which hath been so much witnessed against by the orthodox writting against Papists Socinians Arminians upon these heads It will suffice I suppose if we give a few reasons why we cannot acquiesce in the doctrine proposed by the forenamed Author 1. Hereby works of obedience are exalted to the same place are allowed the same Force Influence Efficacy into Justification with Faith whereby all the Apostles disputes for Faith against Works for faith as inconsistent with exclusive of works are evacuated rendered useless So that the Apostle hath either not spoken to the purpose or hath not spoken truth either of which to say is blasphemie The Apostle argueth thus we are Justified by faith therefore we are not Justified by works This man reasoneth on the contrary we are justified by faith therefore we are justified by works because by a faith that includeth works as if the Apostle had meaned a Faith that was dead had no affinity with works 2. Hereby he confoundeth all these duties which are required of Beleevers or of such as are in Covenant with God with that which is solely required of them in order to their first entering in Covenant or into a state of Justification as â— one should say that all the marriag-duties required of such as were already in that marriage state were conditions of entering into the marriag-state 3. Hereby he confoundeth Justification with Glorification making all that Faith sincere obedience which is required in order to actual Salvation Glorification to be necessary before Justification And thereby must say that no man hath his sins pardoned so long as he liveth but if he be sincerely obedient he is in the way to a Pardon to Justification He cannot say that by a practical Faith he only meaneth such a true and lively Faith as will in due time produce these effects for as that will not consist with his explication of that practical Faith so it would crosse his whole designe The just man in the eye of this new Law as he saith p. 49. is every one that rightly beleeves repents sincerely obeyes because that is all that it requires of a man himself to his Iustification Salvation Where we see that with him Justification Salvation go together have the same conditions and he that is just must be one that hath these Conditions and he who hath not these Conditions is not just in the eye of that new Law and if he be not just in the eye of that new Law his faith cannot be accounted to him for Righteousness nor he Justified 4. The man hereby confoundeth the two Covenants or giveth us a new Covenant of Works in stead of the Covenant of Grace for this practical Faith which includeth all obedience hath the same place force efficacy in the new Covenant that compleet Obedience had in the old And this Gospel is but the old Law of works only with this change that where as the old Law required Perfect Obedience to the end in order to Justification Salvation this new Covenant of works requireth Sincere Obedience to the end in order to Justification Salvation And so thus we are Justified saved as really by upon the account of our works as Adam would have been if he had continued in obedience to the end this Faith and sincere Obedience is as really to all ends purposes as effectually and formally our Righteousness as Perfect Obedience would have been the Righteousness of Adam And thus the reward must as really be reckoned to us of debt not of grace as it would have been to Adam if he had stood And as faire a ground is laid for us to boast glory though not before God as had been for Adam if he had continned to the end The evasion he hath to make all this of grace saying p. 49 50. And yet every beleevers justification will be all of grace because the Law by which they are justified is wholly of grace was enaâ—ed in meer grace favour to undone man is not able to help him for it was wholly of undeserved grace love that God did so far condescend to Adam to all mankinde in him as to strick a Covenant with him a promise of such an ample reward upon his performance of the condition of Perfect Obedience to the end yet notwithstanding this Law was wholly of grace was enacted in meer grace favoure for neither was the Lord necessitated thereunto nor could Adam say he had deserved any such thing at God's hand the reward
flow therefrom be accounted one the same thing but two distinct parts of one compleet effect And therefore the mentioning of the one in stead of the whole proveth no confusion or sameness but rather an inseparablness which is yeelded He move â—in an objection against himself â— 5. thus How can God be said to impute a Righteousness to a man which never was nor ever had a being no Righteousness at least of that kind whereof we now speak having ever been but that perfect obedience which Christ performed to the Law This indeed is a very rational question for our Author talketh much of an imputed Righteousness and never doth nor yet can tell us what that is that can deserve the name of a Righteousness Let us heare what he answereth 1. saith he There is as express compleet a Righteousness in the Law as ever Christ himself performed Ans. But what Righteousness is or can be in a Law but what is there by way of prescription And who doubts 〈◊〉 the perfection of this that acknowledgeth the perfection of the Law This is utterly impertinent to the purpose in hand where the question is of a Righteousness consisting in conformity to the Law and which must be attribute to man to whom the Law is given And what if it be said saith he that God in remission of sins through Christ from out of the Law imputeth to every man that beleeveth such a Righteousness as is proper to him Ans. To say this is to speak plaine non-sense for what is that to furnish a man with a Righteousness out of the Law Can a man be changed into a Law or can a man have any Righteousness prescribed by a Law but by thoughts words deeds bearing a conformity to the commands of the Law And how can 〈◊〉 pardon cause this transformation can the pardon of murther or of any prohibited act make that act conforme to the Law Pardon thus should be a self destroyer for an act that is no transgression of a Law can need no pardon and thus pardon should make itself no pardon What he subjoineth hath bin spoken to elsewhere He giveth a 2. answere saying To say God cannot impute a Righteousness which never had a being i.e. which never was really actually performed by any man is to deny that he hath power to forgive sinâ— Ans. This hath been is full denied it never hath been nor never shall be proved that forgivness of sin is the imputation of a Righteousness Though he addeth from Rom. 4 6. 3 28. c. that it is the imputation of such a Righteousness as consisteth not noâ—es made up of any works performed to the Law by any man which is but a Righteousness that never had a being Ans. This is but a plaine perverting of the Scriptures which speak only of works in that exclusion done performed by us as the whole scope and all the circumstances of the passages demonstrate to any man who will not willingly put out his owne eyes and it were a meer imposing upon the Understandings of the most ordinary Reader and a miserable mispending of time to goe about the evincing of this which is so obvious But what desperat shifts will not a wrong cause put men to use who will not be truths captives His 5. Conclusion cometh here also to be considered It is this He that is fully discharged from his sins needeth no other Râ—ghteousness to give him-Right 〈◊〉 unto life This is as false as the rest for the Law is do this live and pardon for transgressions is not the same with doing of the Law What is his reason death is the wages of sin is of sin only being due to no creature in any other respect nor upon any other terme whatsomever But what then Now he that it free of death no wayes obnoxious thereunto cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life there being neither any middle condition between death life wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist nor againe any capacity of life but by some right â—itle thereunto Ans. Though this be true as to us now that he who is no wayes obnoxious unto death hath a right unto life Yet the consequence that he would draw from it is not good to wit that that only which taketh away the obnoxiousness unto death giveth also a right to life because God hath inseparably joined these effects together as also their distinct causes together and giveth them inseparably so that he who is pardoned hath also a right to life not meerly upon the account that he is pardoned but because together with the imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ whence floweth pardon he imputeth also Christ's Righteousness upon which followeth the right to life And howbeit now as to us there is no middle state betwixt these two Yet in Adam there was for while he stood he was not obnoxious unto death and yet he had not right unto life but was to work out perfect his rask to that end But he tels us That while Adam stood he was already in possession fruition of life else he could not be threatned with death Ans. This is not the life whereof we are speaking we are speaking of the life promised by that Covenant unto perfect obedience But it seemeth that he joyneth with the 〈◊〉 in this granting no life promised to Adam but a Continuance of what he was already in possession of He enquireth If he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sin but was to purchase this right by an ctlual fulfilling of the Law it would be known what quantitâ—eâ— of obedience to the Law he must have paid before he had made this purchase how long he must have obeyed keept the Law Ans. There is no necessity of any exact knowledge of these things our maine question doth not â—â—and or â—all with the knowledge or ignorance of them Yet we may say and that is sufficient that that Law or Covenant requiring perfect obedience and perpetual without the least omission or commission he must have paid all that obedience which the Law required of him to the day of his transâ—â—â—gration or change to glory before the 〈◊〉 had been made He addeth for had he lived a two yeers in his integrity uprightness without the least touch of any transgression he hâ—d still but a debtor of obedience to the Law upon the same termes that he was at the beginning the least interruption or breach in the course of his obedience had even now been the forfeiture of that life he enjoyed Ans. How long Adam should have lived upon earth before his translation to glory we know not nor is it of use for us to enquire it is sufficient to know that he was to finish his course to persevere in obedience to the end if he would not both forfeit the life he had and the expectation of
4 When he saith that to be justified constitutively is nothing else but to be made such as are personally themselves just he speaketh very indistinctly not only as confounding being made just being justified as if they were formally the same but also as not giving us to understand what he meaneth by these words personally thâ—mselves just Hereby he would seem to say that only by something inherent in our persons we are constituted Righteous are justified and not by any thing imputed to us And if so the ground of all Anti-evangelick boasting glorying in ourselves is laid 5 Pardon of sin as such is neither a making a just nor a justifying and the same we say of Right to Christ to Glory 6 Christ's Righteousness according to Mr. Baxter can not be called the meritorious cause of our pardon justification Right to Glory c. because it is only made by him the meritorious cause of the New Covenant wherein pardon Right to Christ to Glory are promised upon New Conditions so is made the meritorious Cause of the connection betwixt the performance of these New Conditions the obtaining of Pardon that Right so that by vertue of Christ's Merites these New Conditions are made the proper immediat meritorious cause ex pacto of these favours And by this way Man can not but boast glory in himself immediatly and give Christ only some remote far-off thanks for procuring the New termes 7 Christ's Righteousness cannot be called our Material Righteousness any other way than as it hath purchased the New Covenant according to Mr. Baxter this being equally for all Christ's Righteousness shall be the Material Righteousness of the Reprobat as well as of Beleevers And how can that be called ours which is not ours nor our own nor are we by it made personally just ourselves as he spoke before 8 According to this doctrine Christ Righteousness meriteth to us another Righteousness which is our own on ourselves by this we are formally justified that is according to what went before to what followeth we are formally justified by our own personal inherent holiness for of this he is speaking only and yet that which he here mentioneth as the Righteousness which formally justifieth us is said to be pardon of sin a Right to Christ to Glory which formally is no Righteousness at all nor no where so called in Scripture is but a consequent of that which elsewhere he calleth our Gospel Righteousness and the Condition of Justification He goeth on n. 182. He that is no cause of any good work is no Christian but a damnable wretch worfe than any wicked man I know in the world And he that is a cause of it must not be denyed falsly to be a cause of it Nor a Saint denied to be a Saint upon a false pretence of self-denyal Ans. Of such a cause of any good work he knoweth the objection speaketh that should have the glory praise thereof and of good works as the ground formal Cause of justification which these against whom Mr. Baxter here disputeth do deny But we may see here what Mr. Baxter accounteth good works even such as the most damnable wretch and possiblie the devil himself may do that is a work materially good though far different from the good works described to us in Scripture And thus the Justification upon good works which Mr. Baxter here meaneth must be a Justification that all Heathens damnable wretches yea devils themselves are capable of But this is not the justification we speak of of which who ever are partakers shall be glorified Rom. 8 30. We say nothing that giveth him ground to think that our thoughts are that a Saint should be denyed to be a Saint upon pretence of Self-denyal Only we say that such as are Saints indeed will be loth to rob God of his glory or take any of that to themselves which is due to him alone in so far as they act as Saints And they should not because Saints glory boast as if their justification before God were by their Sanctity good works not of meer grace through the imputation of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ. One thing I would ask Doth Mr. Baxter think that Christ's Righteousness hath merited that justification which those damnable wretches devils may partake of by any good work which they do himself told us in the foregoing n. 81. that all Righteousnuss which formally iustifieth is our own that to be made just to be justified are the same or equipollent and to be Justified constitutively is nothing else then to be made such as are personally themselves just Now when devils damnable wretches may be the causes of some good work that good work cannot but formally justifie them and they thereby become constitutively justified I would enquire whether this Justification be purchased by Christ or not And againe I would enquire whether this Justification be accompanied with pardon of sin with Right to Christ to glory or not If not how can it be called a justification if it be not a justification how can they be hereby formally justified constitutively justified He tels us next n. 183 As God is seen here in the glass of his works so he is to be loved praised as so appearing This is say I good reasonable What then Therefore saith he he that dishonoureth his work dishonoureth God hindereth his due love and praise This consequence I grant is good but what is it to the point in hand And his most lovely honourable work saith he on earth is his holy image on his Saints as Christ will come to be admired glorified in them at last so God must be seen glorified in them here in some degree Neither say I is any thing of this to the purpose in hand He addeth And to deny the glory of his image is the malignants way of injuring him that in which the worst will serve you And what then He that will praise God saith he further as Creator Redeemer must praise his works of Creation Redemption And is it the way of praising him as our Sanctifier to dispraise his work of Sanctification Ans. What maketh all this to the purpose Must all such be guilty of this malignant wickedness who tell men that no part of their Righteousness is in themselves by which they are to be justified but that it is all in Christ only or that say that God must have all the glory of what good action they do This is hard that either we must be wicked Malignants or Sacrilegious robbers of God of the Glory due unto him But I see no connexion and Mr. Baxter hath not yet demonstrated the same He must then prove the Consequence of this argueing He addeth n. 184. Those poor sinners of my acquantance who lived in the grossest sins against
observable that the Apostle useth a very comprehensive terme beside saying And I count all things but losse c. Moreover thâ— jewish observances while that Law stood in force were useful good a Righteousness as well as the observation of the moral Law to which they were also reducible being enjoined by vertue of the Second Command And if these observances could be brought through mens corruption in competition with set in opposition to Christ and therefore were justly accounted as loss dung nothing in that respect why ought not also moral observances be â—o accounted seing they through mans corruption can be are too oft brought in competition with set in opposition against Christ his Righteousness If Mr. Baxter will yeeld to this he needs disput no more at this rate He addeth So if a man will conceit that his common grace will justifie without holiness or his holiness without pardon the Righteousness of Christ he must deny this Righteousness that is he must deny it to be what it is not must cast away not it but the false concâ—its of it Ans. We think them in an errour who conceit that either common grace will justifie without holiness or holiness with or without pardon the Righteousness of Christ and it is not proper for him who will not hear others saying that Faith justifieth to say that holiness justifieth And it is as improper to say that pardon justifieth Let him tell me how holiness with pardon can justifie And as for the Righteousness of Christ all men with Mr. Baxter are justified by it alike for it only purchased the New Covenant and that it did to all alike and is no other way imputed unto any whatsomever And so according to his judgment it must be denied that Christ's Righteousness becometh the beleevers through God's imputation that beleevers are there with clothed and thereupon made juridically Righteous and then justified or pronunced Righteous through that imputed Surety Righteousness of Christ this is the self-denyal that Mr. Baxter will teach us and stead of this Surety-Righteousness of Christ we must be clothed according to him with our own Gospel Righteousness Faith New Obedience and upon that ground as the only neerest formal reason or meritorious cause expect to be justified because Christ's Righteousness hath purchased this Covenant and connexion Mr. Baxter must not be offended that I mention the word Merite here remembering what he saith himself n. 194. where his friendliness to Papists his displeasure at Protestants is so remarkable in these words And those that reject the saying of some Papists who in this sence say that Christ merited that we might merite placing our Evangelical merite in a meer subordination to Christ's do but shew what prejudice partiality can do and harden those who perceive their errors Finally he saith here And so if any Libertine will say that Christ's Righteousness imputed to him will justifie him without Faith or be in stead to holiness to him he must deny imputed Righteousness thus to be what indeed it is not Ans. Though I know the Lord hath thought good to ordaine Faith as a mean whereby we may be made partaker of Christ's Surety-Righteousness and so be justified Yet I may say that Christ's Righteousness imputed as being the sole meritorious cause Ratie formaliâ— objectiva of our justification will justifie without Faith as any part of that Righteousness which we are considered as clothed with when declared pronunced Righteous And though it be not in stead of holiness as if holiness were no more required of us Yet it is must be in stead of that holiness Righteousness which was required of us in the Old Covenant by the Law in order to our being accepted justified thereupon He tels us in the margine that none deny That all that are saved have inherent Righteousness and that in tantum we are Righteous by it That a man accused as being an Insidel Atheist Impenitent Ungodly a Hypocrite c. must be justified by pleading all the contraries in himself or else perish And that this inherent Righteousness is imperfect and in us found with sin that therefore no man can be justified by it without pardon of sin nor at all against the charge of being a sinner condemnable by the Law of innocency But what is all this to the point Must we not therefore say with Paul that in the business of justification we must account our own Righteousness to be but dung and only lean to the Righteousness of Christ What would he hence conclude And what remaineth then saith he but to trouble the world with contending de nomine whether this Imperfect Righteousness shall be called Righteousness the giving of it called justifying or making us Righteous so far Ans. And who I pray more guilty of troubling the world with these contendings than he But to the matter it is no meer contending de nomine that he hath caused when in stead of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ with which the Orthodox Asserted beleevers to be clothed as the immediat ground of their justification before God and which they by Faith were to lean to and rest upon in order to justification he substituteth in its place our imperfect holiness maketh that to merite justification Salvation as a subordinat Righteousness so called though indeed in this case the principal advanced to that dignity by the merites of Christ's Righteousness and as all that Righteousness which can properly be said to be ours and to be imputed to us as the only Potestative Condition of our Justification Salvation according to the New Covenant purchased by Christ. This is something more and a great something more than a meer contest about a word or a name This toucheth the foundation of the Gospel let Mr. Baxter think as little of it as he will I need not take notice of his making these two one thing justifying making us Righteous and of his calling the giving of Righteousness or holiness a justifying of us for this is but sutable to him who would confound all This is all he speaketh to this matter in this place But thereafter Sect. 5. of merite n. 196. he tels us It is a great question whether a man may trust to his own Faith Repentance or Holiness And I should think that no orthodox man should once make a question about it but should reject the very insinuation of such a thing with detestation seing Trusting to these things is the native consequent of the Popish Socinian Arminian errour about justification or of all who speak of the Imputation of Faith c. as our Righteousness in stead of the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ. What answere giveth he But some men saith he will trouble the world with unexplained words where no sober men differ Ans. The words are plaine enough and need no explication every ordinary Christian
and to all his Spiritual benefites And though these Sacraments do in a more special manner represent Christ as suffering or as dying Yet it is no good consequence hence to inferre that his dying alone shedding his blood is our Righteousness for his death is principally specially there held forth as being the last compleeting act of his Mediatory obedience in his state of humiliation unto which all his former acts of obedience had a special respect in which they did all ultimatly terminate And by what reason will it be proved that nothing done or suffered by Christ can be any part or portion of our Righteousness in him but what is distinctly expressly represented pointed forth by these seales What shall then become of his soul sufferings in the Garden on the Crosse these were not his bloud nor his broken body therefore according to him make no part of our Righteousness in Christ. But we dar not say this His Third ground is from Heb. 10 5 6 7. c. cited out of Psal. 40. And thus he argueth The obedience of Christ in the matter of our Righteousness is of no larger extent than is the will of God which he did obey by which we are sanctified But this is restrained only to the offering of Christ. Ans. The minor is here denied there being no such restraint made as is alleiged for he came to do all the will of God therefore was baptised that he might fulfill all Righteousness It was not seâ—ving to the Apostles scope to mentione any other act of obedience than his offering up of himself but his mentioning no other there will not exclude all mentioned elsewhere Sure the Adversarie will not exclude the promptitude readiness of mind that Christ had unto the offering up of himself long before the appointed time as being no part of that obedience that he performed It cannot then be said that by his once offering up of himself at the last alone we are sanctified by nothing going before in conjunction with this But he tels us that our Iustification Reconciliation c. are ever attributed unto the bloud death Crosse of Christ. Ans. Never exclusively as to his preceeding obedience Yea we are to be saved by his life Rom. 5 10. justification is upon Christ's Righteousness vers 18. And all this will as well conclude for the exclusion of his foregoing obedience from being requisite in Christ as he said above to the end he may be Righteousness to us as for excluding of it from being any part of our Righteousness as also the next thing he saith concerning Paul's respecting in his preaching only the crosse of Christ for the Apostle is not there speaking meerly of the matter of our Righteousness but of the Gospel way of Salvation through a crucified Mediator which the wisdom of this world despised And to this sure our Author will willingly acknowledge that more belongeth than his death abstractivly considered His fourth ground is from Heb. 10 18. whence it followeth saith he that iâ— nothing which is in Christ himself before his death consisteth the remission of our sins so consequently our righteousness Ans. We willingly grant that in nothing that Christ did before his death considered abstractly from his death and separatly by it self did remission of sins consist or to speak more properly was satisfaction made in order to remission Yet hence it will not follow that all his preceeding obedience was no part of his Righteousness or of that whereof we are made partakers in him more than it will follow that it was not requisite in him to the end he might become Righteousness to us If any said as he seemeth to alleige that all our iniquities both original actual were pardoned in his preceeding actual obedience which I shall be loath to say nor know I who speaketh so then his argueing were good that then Christ should be made to dye without a cause If any say as he insinuateth also pag. 104. that Christ was offered only to remove the punishment of our sin and not the sin or guilt thereof I shall not approve of it Yet I cannot assent to what he saith Ibid. That the very offering of Christ for sin secludes all things preceeding whatsoever from all vertue or efficacy of removing iniquity for then it should seclude his soul sufferings which sure were no small part of the Satisfaction made by him for sin Neither will it hence follow that all his foregoing acts of obedience made no integral part of that Surety-Righteousness which he undertook to performe He citeth for his first ground 1. Ioh. 1 7. To which we say That it is true the bloud of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin because it was the bloud of him who had fulfilled all Righteousness in his death had compleeted that Satisfaction he undertook to do He tels us againe pag. 105. from Rom. 4. That unto eternal blessedness it is sufficient to have remission of sins But he remembereth not that all such as have remission of sins there have Righteousness also imputed without works we deny that Righteousness consisteth in remission of sins alone But in all this he is disputing only against such who say that remission of sins is had by the imputation of Christ's actual obedience by his death freedome from punishment is obtained with such I have nothing to do To what he here addeth of the difference betwixt an innocent man a just man enough hath been said already elsewhere His sixt last ground pag. 108. is builded upon the Law of the Priesthood which saith he was ordained of God for this end to make expiation of our sins to bring us unto God which two were shadowed in two actions in the day of Expiation viz. in offering sacrifice c. in carrylng the names of the tribes ingraven in the stones on his shoulder brest plate And this is so far from making against us that it consirmeth rather our opinion for that carrying of the names of the Tribes on the Ephod which was upon the other holy garments together with that plate of pure gold that was upon the mitre on the forefront having engraven upon it HOLINESS TO THE LORD Exod. 28. was sufficient to typifie hold forth Christ's holy obedience Righteousnest could not typifie his death sacrifice And without a Righteousness there is no coming or approaching unto God this Righteousness is some other thing than meer remission of sins His argueing from the Priests first entry on their office at 30. Yeers of age Christ's doing the like Luk. 3 21. to inferre that no action performed by Christ before that time can be accounted the action of expiation of sin or of reconciliation of us to God is most vaine for 1 we make no limitation or restriction of his expiatory work to what he did before he was 30 yeers of age 2
which our case called for was to be made over to us in order to our receiving the grand benefites of pardon life Now it was necessary for us to have a Righteousness consisting in perfect obedience to the Law because of that Constitution Do this live Suffering as such is no obedience to the Law He addeth Their opinion is hard who deny that Christ's passive obedience is imputed to us unto Righteousness that it is the cause of the reward or of life eternal How could Christ's blood purge us from all sin if it were not the Cause of our Righteousness how should he give his flesh for the life of the world if life were not restored to us thereby hoâ— should we be healed by his stripes if we were not sanctified by him how should Christ's death be our life if we gote not life thereby betwixt freedone from the Curse of the Law right to the everlasting inheritaâ—ce there is no middle state Ans. 1 We deny only that Christ's passive obedience alone is imputed to us unto Righteousness for alone considered being only the paying of the penalty it is not the Righteousness required in the Law 2 The paying of a penalty though it may deliver from punishment yet cannot procure a right to the reward promised to keeping of the Law as is manifest therefore Christ's passive obedience considered alone cannot procure a right to that reward of life that was promised to the fulfilling of the Law by obedience 3 Christ's blood being the blood of one that fulfilled also the Law and conjunct with that obedience both purgeth from sin meriteth life And so we say of the rest following only I cannot see how pertinently in the last sanctification is mentioned for we are speaking of right to life eternal 4 It is true as to us now there is no midd'le state betwixt freedom from the Curse of the Law Right to the Inheritance â— because Christ's whole obedience both active passive is imputed as a compleat Satisfaction Righteousness whereby we come to obtaine both a freedome from the Curse a right to the Inheritance But in Adam before he fell there was a middle state for so long as he stood he was free of the Curse yet was to finish his course of obedience in order to obtaining the right to the promised reward unless it be said that no more was promised than the continuance of what he possessed It was excpted That the Law is not fulfilled by suffering the punishment for the Law the command is one but punishment fulfilleth not the commandement it only satisfieth the threatning Therefore the suffering of the punishment can not be the cause of the reward He ans by denying the Antec saying that by suffering of the punishment the Law is fulfilled by the Mediator partly formally in that he suffered the punishment due to us by the Law partly efficiently in that by his sufferings he not only took away the Curse but acquired a holiness to us with holiness life eternal Ans. This answere is no way satisfying for suffering of the punishment as such is no obedience to the Law and of the fulfilling of the Law by obedience to the commands thereof did the Exception only speak no man will say that such as are now suffering the punishment in hell are any way fulfilling the Law Neither is that holiness procured by Christ's death any fulfilling of the Law according to the Old Covenant such a fulfilling is required in order to the obtaining of a right to the reward of life promised in that Covenant He answereth againe that when the threatning of the Law is satisfied that is done which the Law commandeth to be done so in part the Law is fulfilled Ans. Suffering as such is no commanded thing the Law constituting a penalty maketh only suffering to be due but doth not enjoine any suffering So that though the Law be satisfied with a Satisfaction laid down by another so far as that the other is not to suffer Yet by this paying of the penalty the Lawes commands are not fulfilled in whole nor in part And the Law as to the commands must be fulfilled ere a right to the reward promised to obedienceâ— be obtained Arg. 6. is taken from passages of Scripture mentioning the active obedience of Christ such as Dan. 9 24. Ier. 23 6. 1. Cor. 1 30. Rom. 5 19. Phil. 2 8. He Ans. 1. That these places do not prove that Christ's active obedience is imputed so as by it we are accounted observers of the Law Ans. These passages sufficiently prove that his active obedience belongeth to that Righteousness Satisfaction which is imputed unto us the fruites of the Righteousness of Christ imputed are here as well ascribed to his active as to his passive obedience of the places in particular we have said enough elsewhere our disput here is not about imputation but about that which is imputed or that which is reckoned to us as our Righteousness this we say cannot be pure suffering of the penalty for that as such is no Righteousness nor no where is it so called He Ans. 2. That it only followeth that the reforming of our corrupt nature could not be had from Christ by Christ without his active obedience Ans. The same may as well be said of the passive obedience so the cause shall be yeelded unto the Socinians But the matter is clear That Christ is our compleat Righteousness not effectivly for he worketh no compleat legal Righteousness in us that is a Righteousness according as was required in the Old Covenant And beside the expiation of sin he brought in a Righteousness which is called everlasting Dan. 9 24. which can not be understood of our imperfect sanctification And beside that he is our Sanctification he is our Righteousness 1. Cor. 1 30. therefore must be our Righteousness another way than by working it in us for so is he our Sanctification And Rom. 5. our justification life is directly ascribed to his Obedience Righteousness To that Phil. 2 8. he saith The meaning is that Christ from his birth to his death did so accommodate himself to his Fathers will that he suffered all most patiently that was to suffer even the cursed death of the crosse Ans. It was a suffering of what he was to suffer even to come under the Law for that was a part of his humiliation the text saith he humbled himself became obedient and there is no ground to restrick the word Obedient to his suffering only Arg. 7. Christ was made under the Law for us Gal. 4 4 5. He Ans. He was made under the Law for our good that he might be a fit Mediator Ans. Why may not we as well admit the same sense of Christ's being said to be made a curse for us to wit that it was only for our good and so give up the Cause
Cor. 11 3. Ephes. 4 15. 1 22. Col. 1 18. And so must have a body Ephes. 1 23. Rom. 12 5. Ephes. 4 4. Col. 3 15. 1 24. 2 19. Ephes. 4 16. 5 23. 3 6. He is called the Vine stock shall he have no Brancnes Ioh. 15 1 2. c. These things might be further enlairged pressed but we shall haste forward 19. Our Adversaries say That Christ by his Death passion did Absolutely even according to the Intention of God purchase Remission of sins Reconciliation with God and that for all every man Others say conditionally But withal as to the application of this purchase it is made to depend upon faith and so they distinguish betwixt Impetration Application And though it is true the purchase made is one thing and the actual enjoyment of the thing purchased is another thing Yet we may not say with our Adversaries that the Impetration is for moe than shall have the Application But we assert that both Impetration Application in respect of the designe of the Father which is absolute certain and the Intention of Christ the Mediator which is fixed peremptory are for the same individual persons so that for whomsoever God sent Christ Christ came to purchase any good unto these same shall it actually in due time in the Method manner Condescended upon prescribed be given upon them none else shall it actually be bestowed for 1. No other thing beside this Application can be supposed to have been the end of the Impettation And sure Christ was herein a Rational Agent Nay it was the Intention designe of the Father that the Application of these good things should be by the meanes of this Impetration as is abundantly cleared above 2. We cannot suppose that either Christ or his Father should faile or come short of their end designed but by our Adversaries the Impetration might have been obtained and yet no Application made of the good things impetrated obtained 3. If no Application was intended by the Father or by Christ then it must be said that both were uncertain as to what the Event should have been or at least Regardless Unconcerned either of which to affirme were blasphemy 4. The very word Impetrate having the same force import with Purchase Procure Obtaine Merite and the like doth say that such for whom this Impetration was made have a right upon the Impetration to the thing Acquired Purchased And if they have a right thereto that Possession should follow 5. Yea the word importeth the actual conferring of the good to be the very end of the Purchaseing Impetrating and so in this case the very Impetration is ground of Assurance of the Application considering who did impetrate and at whose hands and withall what was the ground of the Fathers sending of Christ and of Christs coming to impetrate even inconceiveably wonderful great Love Nor doth the intervening of a condition required before the actual collation of some of the good things purchased hinder at all for all these Blessings some whereof are as a condition to others are the one good thing Impetrated and the very conditions are also Impetrated as we declared above and so this pointeth forth only the methode of the actual bestowing of these good things purchased 6. How absurd is it to say a thing is Impetrated or Obtained and yet may or may not be Bestowed may be Possessed or not Possessed Or to say that such a good thing is Obtained by price or petitioning and yet the same good thing may never be Bestowed or the Bestowing of it hangeth dependeth upon an Uncertain Condition which may never beperformed 7. How unreasonable is it that such should have right to the Merites that have no right to the thing Merited Doth not an interest in the Merites procureing any thing include an interest in the thing Merited When a ransome is payed for captives to the end they may be delivered have not these Captives a right to the deliverance upon the payment of that ransome 8. The Scriptures do so connect these two that it argueth contempt thereof to imagine such a separation as Rom. 4 25. Yea the one is assigned as a certain Effect Consequent flowing from the Other as its Moral cause Esai 53 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many this Justification is the Application whence cometh it For he shall bear their iniquities there is the Impetration given as the ground hereof So further vers 5. he was wounded for our transgressions c. and what followeth upon this Impetration And by his stripes are we healed So Rom. 5 vers 18. By the Righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification So that the Application reacheth an all that is all who have interest in the Righteousness which is the thing Impetrated see also Heb. 10 10. 9. If Christs Intercession be for the same persons for whom he died then the Application is to the same for this Intercession of Christ is in order to the Application But that Christs Intercession is for the same persons for whom he died we shall see hereafter 10. If all things be ensured to such for whom Christ died then certanely this Application cannot fail but the former is true Rom. 8 32. He that spared not his owne Son but delivered him up for us all how shall he not mark this manner of expression which importeth the greated of absurdities to think otherwise with him also freely give us all things 11. And in that same place vers 33 34. Christs death is given as the certain ground of Justification Salvation so that such as he died for shall certanely in due time after the methode prescribed be Justified Saved otherwayes there were no sure ground in the Apostles argueing for if all the ground of this certanty as to Application were from their Faith or fulfilling of the Condition the Apostle would have mentioned this as the maine ground not have led them to a ground common to others who never should partake of the Application 12. This matter is abundantly confirmed from what we said above concerning Christs purchasing of Faith and dying for our sanctification to bring us to God c. so that more needeth not be added here 20. For further confirmation of this and because our Adversaries think to salve the fore mentioned separation of Impetration Application by telling us that where good things are Absolutely purchased then Application must follow But not where good things are purchased only Conditionally as in our case we shall therefore shew how this will not hold nor advantage their cause for 1. If all be Redeemed Conditsonally that condition whatever it be must in equity be revealed to all 2. Either God Christ knew who would performe this condition or not If not then they were not omniscient If they